It said: "The consensus is that a North Korean attack on Guam
would not trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, under
which members are obliged to come to each other's defence if
attacked."

Article 5 applies only to areas physically in Europe or the North
Atlantic Ocean, which is made clear in
the treaty itself.

Ad

Guam, the US island territory that Kim Jong Un's regime has
repeatedly threatened to strike, is in the Pacific Ocean and
therefore outside of NATO's remit.

That same restriction was why the UK couldn't invoke Article 5
over Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands in the South
Atlantic Ocean in 1982, the report noted.

Despite the lack of a legal obligation, however, Britain could
still come to the United States' aid if it asks. Per the report:

"This does not mean that NATO allies would not assist the US in
the event of an outbreak of hostilities with North Korea. In the
event of an act of pre-emptive North Korean aggression, some of
them (including the UK) would likely want to respond positively
to a US request for assistance."

The House of Commons Library report came the same day North Korea
renewed threats against Guam, saying that a recent missile test
that flew over Japan was a "meaningful
prelude to containing Guam."

Speaking in Japan on Wednesday, UK Prime Minister Theresa May
insisted that North Korea's missile tests were "illegal," but did
not answer when asked whether she would commit British troops to
fight North Korea.

Dave Denoon, director of New York University's Center on US-China
Relations, also told Business Insider this week that China was
unlikely to impose sanctions on North Korea, because crippling
the North Korean economy could result in large refugee flows into
China:

NATO's Article 5 hinges on the 29-member bloc's principle
of collective defence, which states that an attack against
one ally is considered an attack against all allies.